Did teams ever really have a chance before the sugar daddy era? There were 11 or so seasons between the Premier League starting and Abramovich buying Chelsea. 3 teams won the league - Arsenal got 2, Blackburn 1 and United 8. Hardly open competition, then. Actually since the Abramovich takeover we've had far less dominance by one club, and indeed 4 different champions. Maybe most of the league has no chance to win the title, but let's not pretend they did beforehand either -the list of champions speaks for itself.

I hate the role of money in football, but you can't blame City or Chelsea or whoever for doing what they're allowed to. It's not their fault the rules are so lacking. I mean, the whole English football system is built on money buying success - do you think football in England would be so competitive without money? It was rubbish in the early 90s compared to Serie A, and that was a time when England had better footballers than today, by and large.

but as far as i can tell wasnt that mainly down to United slowly building a side and having a foundation based on youth?

i have no problem with sensible investment but City/Chelsea really just bought the title, by spending silly sums and on silly wages.

without large spending alot of those seasons were very close (although united did win a couple by large margains.)

but as far as i can tell wasnt that mainly down to United slowly building a side and having a foundation based on youth?

i have no problem with sensible investment but City/Chelsea really just bought the title, by spending silly sums and on silly wages.

without large spending alot of those seasons were very close (although united did win a couple by large margains.)

Everybody buys the title. You don't buy players that make you lose!

If United were so special why did they spend 30 million on Rio, 27 million on Rooney, 30 million on Berbatov, they bought Valencia for 16 million and Ashley Young for the stupid price they paid for an insanely right footed left winger? And before then, they spent on Ince, Poborsky, Cantona, etc.

Chelsea and Man City spent to compete and everybody who says it upset the status quo is right.

I'm a Chelsea fan, and with the exception of Torres and David Luiz for a combined 75 million we haven't spent over 50 million in one transfer window since summer 2005, and I always make the point that our sides that won the double in 2009-10 and the Champions League and FA Cup last season were players that had been playing together for 6-7 seasons already. I admit our first title my have been "bought" rather than built but everybody does it and if your club went the same way if it was bought by a "suger daddy" you wouldn't be attacking the "new money clubs".

And the whole balancing the books thing is silly. The first thing Roman did when he took over was wipe the slate clean, so whilst we've been spending we've never been in debt.

It's clubs like Man United, Barcelona and Real Madrid that anger me. They are all in 100s of millions in debt and continue to spend and spend.

If United were so special why did they spend 30 million on Rio, 27 million on Rooney, 30 million on Berbatov, they bought Valencia for 16 million and Ashley Young for the stupid price they paid for an insanely right footed left winger? And before then, they spent on Ince, Poborsky, Cantona, etc.

Chelsea and Man City spent to compete and everybody who says it upset the status quo is right.

I'm a Chelsea fan, and with the exception of Torres and David Luiz for a combined 75 million we haven't spent over 50 million in one transfer window since summer 2005, and I always make the point that our sides that won the double in 2009-10 and the Champions League and FA Cup last season were players that had been playing together for 6-7 seasons already. I admit our first title my have been "bought" rather than built but everybody does it and if your club went the same way if it was bought by a "suger daddy" you wouldn't be attacking the "new money clubs".

And the whole balancing the books thing is silly. The first thing Roman did when he took over was wipe the slate clean, so whilst we've been spending we've never been in debt.

It's clubs like Man United, Barcelona and Real Madrid that anger me. They are all in 100s of millions in debt and continue to spend and spend.

We were 90 million in debt when he took over. So I'd say just 90 million as all the transfer fees were his prerogative.

You can all thank Jesper Gronkjaer for our success. If he didn't score the winner against Liverpool on the last day in 02-03 we would have been in the UEFA Cup again and Roman only wanted a UCL club from a capital. One of the reasons he turned down offers to take over United and Spurs. We would probably be today's equivalent of Villa or worse if Roman didn't come along. That's why we sing his name when we win trophies, that's why JT and Lamps always get him to lift the trophies too. He comes down to stand with the players and applaud them but JT and Lamps always grab him and let him lift the trophy. Roman really does love the club and is in for the long haul.

If United were so special why did they spend 30 million on Rio, 27 million on Rooney, 30 million on Berbatov, they bought Valencia for 16 million and Ashley Young for the stupid price they paid for an insanely right footed left winger? And before then, they spent on Ince, Poborsky, Cantona, etc.

Chelsea and Man City spent to compete and everybody who says it upset the status quo is right.

I'm a Chelsea fan, and with the exception of Torres and David Luiz for a combined 75 million we haven't spent over 50 million in one transfer window since summer 2005, and I always make the point that our sides that won the double in 2009-10 and the Champions League and FA Cup last season were players that had been playing together for 6-7 seasons already. I admit our first title my have been "bought" rather than built but everybody does it and if your club went the same way if it was bought by a "suger daddy" you wouldn't be attacking the "new money clubs".

And the whole balancing the books thing is silly. The first thing Roman did when he took over was wipe the slate clean, so whilst we've been spending we've never been in debt.

It's clubs like Man United, Barcelona and Real Madrid that anger me. They are all in 100s of millions in debt and continue to spend and spend.

At least Chelsea, Man City, PSG and Malaga have no debt.

Arsenal bought Vivas (not sure why that one stands out so much lol)

everyone spends money the difference is the club earn that money.

i mean balancing the books in terms so the club earning money and spending it.

arent united only in debt because cos the glazers buying them? they have no debts related to signings/wages, do they?

dont this rich owners have an iou system , which granted they could write off on a wim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unknown brother

We were 90 million in debt when he took over. So I'd say just 90 million as all the transfer fees were his prerogative.

You can all thank Jesper Gronkjaer for our success. If he didn't score the winner against Liverpool on the last day in 02-03 we would have been in the UEFA Cup again and Roman only wanted a UCL club from a capital. One of the reasons he turned down offers to take over United and Spurs. We would probably be today's equivalent of Villa or worse if Roman didn't come along. That's why we sing his name when we win trophies, that's why JT and Lamps always get him to lift the trophies too. He comes down to stand with the players and applaud them but JT and Lamps always grab him and let him lift the trophy. Roman really does love the club and is in for the long haul.

If United were so special why did they spend 30 million on Rio, 27 million on Rooney, 30 million on Berbatov, they bought Valencia for 16 million and Ashley Young for the stupid price they paid for an insanely right footed left winger? And before then, they spent on Ince, Poborsky, Cantona, etc.

Chelsea and Man City spent to compete and everybody who says it upset the status quo is right.

And don't forget Andy Cole too for 7 million - that was huge in its day, and right off a title rival at the time in Newcastle.

That's ironic because Ken Bates left when Roman came in and then trundled off to Leeds. And it's a bit of a myth that Chelsea were about to go bankrupt.

They had qualified for the Champions League without spending any money on new players that season. That would comfortably have serviced the interest on their debts and paid wages. Had they seriously struggled they could've sold off their best players (Terry, Lampard, Hasselbaink, Gudjohnson) for an absolute fortune back then. And if things had somehow gone completely **** up they'd probably have faced a points deduction.

The fact that Leeds got relegated had very little to do with their financial woes. They had a squad capable of staying up easily, they just bottled it.

That's ironic because Ken Bates left when Roman came in and then trundled off to Leeds. And it's a bit of a myth that Chelsea were about to go bankrupt.

They had qualified for the Champions League without spending any money on new players that season. That would comfortably have serviced the interest on their debts and paid wages. Had they seriously struggled they could've sold off their best players (Terry, Lampard, Hasselbaink, Gudjohnson) for an absolute fortune back then. And if things had somehow gone completely **** up they'd probably have faced a points deduction.

The fact that Leeds got relegated had very little to do with their financial woes. They had a squad capable of staying up easily, they just bottled it.

If we didn't qualify for the Champions League we would have been done for European wise and would be a mid table club now. That's the point I was making. Jesper Gronkjaer saved the club with that goal and Roman's money accelerated our climb to success.